This is a point that's been analyzed ad-nauseam and similar thought experiments, it's a version of what functionalists use.
Some intuitions against sound something like:
1. A certain frequency synchronization seems to be required for us to be conscious (or at least remember that we were such) -- see e.g. buzsaki's rythm's of the brain
2. Consciousness may be the result of a macro-level arrangement (e.g. a very topologically complex EM field) - see experiments around activating neuronal firing with EM fields that are to weak to get past their membrane potential
3. Activity != consciousness, we aren't conscious during deep sleep (as far as we can tell) - again pointing to something like (2)
4. Consciousness is an ill defined concept outside of long stretches of experience -- in that it's not something we've actually observed outside of humans, which are conscious for long stretches of time
5. It takes quite a while for "consciousness" to instantiate (refer to your experience waking up)
6. Cronoproteins are necessary for brains to operate, and it seems like we would meaningfully lose their state & function with freezing - this goes for other proteins too - but time-tracking at a small scale is an interesting example -- This sounds like "rules lawyering a thought experiment" -- but beware of counterfactuals that you can't instantiate in nature, as they often come from models which we confuse for reality
Tbh all of the points above make it sound like consciousness is an empty concept that defines pixie dust that doesn't exist.
I don't claim it is.
I am just saying that if every time there is a question of "where does this thing called consciousness exist in case X?" you just add another asterisk like "oh its there but only if you are active for X time" then it totally sounds like a thing you can shove into anything and add attributes to it until you can justify its existence.
Right, it's a concept that would be entirely pixie-dusty unless we were this experience (and stopped being this experience during moments like sleep) and unless we could note that this experiences changes valence and intensity.
This is a point that's been analyzed ad-nauseam and similar thought experiments, it's a version of what functionalists use.
Some intuitions against sound something like:
1. A certain frequency synchronization seems to be required for us to be conscious (or at least remember that we were such) -- see e.g. buzsaki's rythm's of the brain
2. Consciousness may be the result of a macro-level arrangement (e.g. a very topologically complex EM field) - see experiments around activating neuronal firing with EM fields that are to weak to get past their membrane potential
3. Activity != consciousness, we aren't conscious during deep sleep (as far as we can tell) - again pointing to something like (2)
4. Consciousness is an ill defined concept outside of long stretches of experience -- in that it's not something we've actually observed outside of humans, which are conscious for long stretches of time
5. It takes quite a while for "consciousness" to instantiate (refer to your experience waking up)
6. Cronoproteins are necessary for brains to operate, and it seems like we would meaningfully lose their state & function with freezing - this goes for other proteins too - but time-tracking at a small scale is an interesting example -- This sounds like "rules lawyering a thought experiment" -- but beware of counterfactuals that you can't instantiate in nature, as they often come from models which we confuse for reality
Tbh all of the points above make it sound like consciousness is an empty concept that defines pixie dust that doesn't exist.
I don't claim it is.
I am just saying that if every time there is a question of "where does this thing called consciousness exist in case X?" you just add another asterisk like "oh its there but only if you are active for X time" then it totally sounds like a thing you can shove into anything and add attributes to it until you can justify its existence.
Right, it's a concept that would be entirely pixie-dusty unless we were this experience (and stopped being this experience during moments like sleep) and unless we could note that this experiences changes valence and intensity.
Hence why it's interesting to look at.
🤔